SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (56125)5/13/2000 8:02:00 PM
From: sunshadow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 122087
 
Tony, praying and hoping that all goes well !

Take care!



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (56125)5/13/2000 10:21:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 122087
 
Blue Water Surged on Tiny Stock That May Yet Leave It Adrift


New York, May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Blue Water's funds returned 140 percent as the top-performers among hedge funds in the first quarter -- but they're unlikely to retain that lofty pinnacle.

The three funds, which mirror the same investing strategy, owed much of their gain to one stock -- NetSol International Inc., a money-losing software developer that soared 249 percent in the quarter.

On Friday, however, NetSol fell 8 to 38 after reporting a loss of $797,603, or 8 cents a share, for the quarter ended March 31, compared with the year-earlier period's loss of $174,000 or 6 cents a share. The stock has shed almost half its value since reaching a high of 75 on March 3.

Blue Water, run by money manager Jonathan Iseson, as of May 1 had about two-thirds of its $160 million in net assets invested in NetSol. The fund's most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicates it owns 24.8 percent of NetSol.

NetSol's performance in the first quarter ``helped us a lot,'' said Iseson, though ``it's not something we want any publicity on.''

Iseson, a 43-year-old former trader at investment bankers Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, was reluctant to discuss his portfolio's makeup but -- a few days before NetSol's quarterly results -- sounded confident about the Calabasas, California- based company.

Risk

``It's a company coming out of infancy and getting credibility,'' said Iseson.

Still, placing a large investment in a fledgling company makes for ``a very high level of risk, involving both a lack of diversification and a lack of liquidity,'' said John Coffee, professor of securities law at Columbia University Law School. ``Effectively all their eggs are in one basket.''

``It makes me uncomfortable,'' said San Francisco money manager Gary Marks, whose investment with Blue Water is now worth $2 million, though he's pleased because ``I've never made 140 percent in three months.''

In beating second-place Galleon Omni Technology (up 115 percent) and third-best Polaris Prime Europe (up 101 percent), Iseson said he's balanced the risk of his large position in NetSol with a ``proprietary'' hedging technique, on which he wouldn't elaborate.

``We are hedged and will make a lot of money in the future,'' said Iseson, who works with ``four or five'' computer screens out of a 400-square-foot trading room in his Manhasset, Long Island, home.

Blue Water's total portfolio, including both long and short positions, was leveraged to $330 million, Iseson said, so NetSol accounts for just 32 percent of total holdings.

NetSol's Shift

NetSol, then known as Mirage Holdings Inc., went public in 1998 as an importer of exotic clothing from Pakistan. The business soon soured and it bought a software company from the chief executive's brother, Salim Ghauri, and changed its name. About three-quarters of its 290 employees work in Pakistan.

Salim Ghauri became chief executive after the acquisition. His brother Najeeb Ghauri now is NetSol's president while another brother, Naeem Ghauri, is chief operations officer.

The company writes software for clients around the world, including Daimler Chrysler Taiwan, and its Pakistani software engineers are said to be paid 90 percent less than U.S. counterparts. ``They're a low-cost producer in a high-growth business,'' said Iseson.

NetSol isn't followed by any Wall Street analysts but two research reports were issued on the company last year. A ''buy'' recommendation in March was followed by a ``strong buy'' in June from independent analyst Howard Stillman of Stillman Equity Research in San Diego. He said he was paid $4,000 for each report by NetSol.

Blue Water, backed by 80 wealthy investors, opened in February 1999 and along the way took positions in Chase Manhattan Corp., MetLife Inc., and brokers Morgan Keegan Inc., among others.

Aggressive

Iseson began purchasing NetSol last year and owned 7.4 percent of the stock by August, according to his filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, when shares were trading at around $7. In its most recent SEC filing this week, Blue Water reported paying $43.1 million for its 2.1 million NetSol shares, an average of about $20.50 a share for its 24.8 percent stake.

Only about 14 percent, or 1.3 million of NetSol's 9.6 million shares remain in the public float. In addition to Blue Water 2.1 million shares, NetSol's officers and directors own 5.1 million.

Like other hedge funds, Blue Water invests more aggressively than mutual funds, as demonstrated by its NetSol bet. Iseson, who said he used personal funds for about 10 percent of Blue Water's initial capital, pays himself 20 percent of the fund's quarterly profits.

The details of Blue Water's other holdings aren't known because hedge funds, unlike mutual funds, aren't required to file quarterly reports with the SEC disclosing where they place investors' money.

Blue Water's ranking was tabulated by MAR/Hedge, a unit of Metal Bulletin Plc, which tracks the performance of more than 1,300 hedge funds. Unlike some funds, Blue Water has no limits on how much money it invests in any one security and investors must leave money in the fund at least 12 months before making any withdrawals.

Iseson says he's not worried about his fund's liquidity nor that of his NetSol shares, which he says ``will go two or three times higher.''

``I believe when the time comes, we will be able to do what we have to do,'' he said. ``The exit strategy will present itself when it's appropriate.''

May/13/2000 18:48 GMT

For more stories from Bloomberg News, click here.

(C) Copyright 2000 Bloomberg L.P.



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (56125)5/13/2000 11:50:00 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 122087
 
A MUST READ-->Investors in search of advice used to call their brokers. Or read the Wall Street Journal.

Then came the financial television networks - CNBC, fnn, Bloomberg - and ordinary people gained access to some of the high profile analysts whose predictions and advice occasionally move markets.

Along came the Internet, and with it a constantly expanding group of financial newsletters that offer reports and recommendations on everything from well-recognized blue chip names to little known companies looking to attract investor interest.

But not all newsletters are created equal ? some offer objective analysis while others are merely promotional tools hyping stock to unsuspecting investors. How can consumers tell the difference? We offer a few thoughts.

1. Has the newsletter, or anyone associated with it, been compensated by the company it is profiling? Some newsletters receive cash, or stock, in exchange for writing a report on a public company. In those instances can the "report" really be called objective and can the newsletter be considered unbiased?

2. Does the newsletter offer a balanced view; that is, does it point out the negative aspects of an investment as well as the pluses? In order to make a thoughtful investment decision, investors need to know a company?s potential problems as well as its promise.

3. Is the newsletter merely a repetition of information contained in company press releases? If the answer is yes, then it would seem that this "newsletter" is merely a public relations tool. In that case investors should recognize that the report or recommendation they are receiving does not necessarily reflect any objective analysis.

4. Is someone guaranteeing a profitable investment or describing a stock as a "sure thing." There are no "sure things" in the stock market, and no one can guarantee the future of an investment, (or the winner of a horse race or the outcome of a prize fight for that matter) ? unless manipulation is involved.

5. Does the newsletter claim to have information of impending developments that are likely to boost the stock of a little-known company? Since passing on non-public material information to potential investors (more commonly known as "insider trading") is unlawful, it is more likely that the newsletter is either spreading unsubstantiated rumors or acting as a public relations vehicle for the company. In either case, investors should treat such "promises of sugarplums" with a healthy dose of skepticism.

6. Are the potential risks clearly outlined and defined? Some newsletters may simply offer the blanket warning that all investments can be risky. That is insufficient. Every investment carries with it specific risks that should be outlined by the person making the recommendation so that these risks can be assessed by potential investors.

7. Does the newsletter recommend little known microcap companies with no significant track record, scant assets, and little or no financial success? Such reports should generally point out the significant possibility that investors may lose their entire investment. If they don?t ? be wary.

8. Can an investor find supporting information about the company recommended in a newsletter? For example, is it possible to determine the number of shares outstanding and the names and background of the company?s management and principal stockholders. Are financial statements available? Without such information, an investor cannot possibly make an informed judgment about a company ? and neither can a newsletter.

One final thought. If something sounds too good to be true, chances are it?s too good to be true.

And, as always, the buyer should be wary.

¸2000 Stock Patrol.com. All rights reserved.

WE'RE BACK ON PATROL
stockpatrol.com



To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (56125)5/15/2000 10:21:00 AM
From: Pink Minion  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 122087
 
Has anybody seen this before?

I put in a limit order to sell BLNZE at 5.

It executed today at 9:33:13 at 5.01

What it this? a new tax?